In Oscar Wilde’s famous story, the hero Dorian Graypledged his soul,on the condition that the painted portrait of his as a handsome youth must go through the ageing process on the canvas-in exchange of his right to enjoy eternal youth in real life.It was a wishful deal betweentwo traditional forms – art as fixed imageon the one hand , and the living being ageingon the other . The latter takes on the role of art in exchange of the former’s agreeing to age – a reversal of roles.

In a curious twist of history, a portrait has sparked off a controversy. The violent invasion of Aligarh Muslim University campus on May 2, 2018 by members of the ruling party’s youth wing Hindu YuvaVahini (founded by the Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Adityanath) and the BJP’s central students’ wing (ABVP), who accompanied by the police, launched assaults on the university’s students,was all over a single portrait that adorns the walls of the students’ union hall there. It is that of Muhammad Ali Jinnah , the founder of Pakistan.

The last time I visited AMU was some thirty years ago, as a part of a civil rights organization team to investigate into communal riots in Aligarh. During the visit, I was invited by an old friend, an AMU professor, to a meeting at the campus. I remember watching the gallery of portraits decorating the walls of the students’ union office. Even then, the portraits (of Jinnah, rubbing shoulders with those of Gandhi and other Indian national leaders) appeared weary and tired, with the surface peeling off, ill-preserved as they were. They seemed to be decaying into decrepitude.

But like Dorian Gray, their modern living replicas are enjoying eternal youth in the present political scenario. As is the wont with replicas, they distort the shapes and colours of the original portraits.

Re-visiting Jinnah

The youth who invaded AMU, as well as their leaders who presently occupy important ministerial posts in both UP and the Centre, sad to say, have been brought upon a culture of religious bigotry, and educated under themilitaristRSS shakhasystem, which hadnot only rendered them myopic in their judgments, but also trained them in violence in their acts. Obsessed with the narrow Hindu-oriented interpretation of Indian history that had been drilled into their brains by their Sangh-pracharkas’, they are blind to the multi-faceted and multi-religious dimensions of the history of India’s Independence movement. Given their training, it is no wonder that theseBJP leaders and their followers are totally ignorant of the role that Jinnah played in the early years of ournational movement for independence from British rule. While we mustsurely condemn Jinnah’s responsibility for the devastating communal riots of 1946 that were sparked off by his notorious Direct Action’ call, as honest historians and knowledgeable citizens, we cannot also block out from our history the part that he played in fighting the British colonial rulers in the past. To give a few instances, in 1916, Jinnah, as a young advocate came to the rescue of Bal Gangadhar Tilak,when he faced a charge of sedition registeredby the then British district magistrate of Poona. Convinced by Jinnah’s arguments as his defence counsel, a two-member Bombay High Court bench, headed by Justices Batchelor and Shah,acquitted Tilak on November 9, 1916. Soon after that Tilak and Jinnah brought together the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League in Lucknow that year to sign a pact agreeing on the demand for representation of religious minorities in the provincial legislatures.

Still later, in 1929 Jinnah came out in defence of Bhagat Singh and Batukeshwar Dutta, who were then imprisoned and facing trial for throwing bombs in the Central Legislative Assembly on April 8 that year. The two revolutionaries , along with other comrades of theirs, went on a hunger strike protesting against what they described as a `farcical’ trial, and refused to appear before the court. This made it difficult for the British administrators to proceed with the trial under the normal rules (that required the presence of the accused in the court). They therefore tried to enact a bill that allowed the court to proceed with the case in their absence, if the accused ‘voluntarily’ refused to appear. When the bill was introduced in the Central Legislative Assembly , Jinnah, as a member of the Assembly, delivered a powerful speech on its floors on September 12, 1929, where he not only challenged the bill on legal grounds, but also proclaimed his unstinted support for Bhagat Singh and his comrades who were fasting in jail at that time. Jinnah’s unforgettable tribute to them is worth quoting: “I ask the honourable law members to realize that it is not everybody who can go on starving himself to death… the man who goes on hunger strike has a soul. He is moved by that soul and he believes in the justice of his cause…” Despite his efforts, Jinnah could not save Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev, who two years later were sentenced to death under the same legal provision (that Jinnah fought against) which was introduced as an ordinance this time.

In the course of his roller-coaster political journey, Jinnah ended up as a proponent of a separate Pakistan – a far cry from his past role as achampion of an Indian nation based on Hindu-Muslim unity, that earned him the sobriquet An Ambassador of Unity’, from Sarojini Naidu. Historians continue to debate whether he was alienated by the increasingly Hindu-oriented rhetoric of the Gandhi-led Congress leadership (e.g. slogan of satyagraha’ ), and its political tactics of non-cooperation with the government , that led Jinnah to resign from the Congress in 1920. Brought upon the tradition of moderateCongressmen like DadabhaiNaoroji and Gokhale, he believed in the possibility of achieving self-government through constitutional means of negotiations with the colonial administration, instead of Gandhi’s extra-constitutional path of satyagraha,’ which he described as political anarchy.’

Paradoxes in Jinnah’s political career

Curiously enough, after leaving the Congress party, Jinnah instead of establishing an alternative secular platform, chose to seek support from the narrow religious base of his own community – a paradoxical situation, since Jinnah in his personal life never followed strict Islamic laws. More paradoxes were to follow. Jinnah who in 1920 broke away from the Congress on the ground that it was not following constitutional norms, in 1946 gave a call to his Muslim followers which violated those same constitutional norms. He asked them to observea nation-wide Direct Action’ day on August 16 that year, on the demand for Pakistan, by suspending all business and transactions with the administration - a sort of replication of Gandhi’s policy of non-cooperation which he opposed in the past.Prior to his announcement ofDirect Action’, at a press conference in Bombay in July that year, when asked by newsmen what he proposed to do if his demand for Pakistan was not granted, he said: “I also am going to make trouble.” (Re: Margaret Bourke-White’s book, `Halfway to Freedom: A Report on the New India’. 1949. Simon and Schuster. New York.)

And trouble’ indeed Jinnah created, by his Direct Action’ call on August 16, 1946. But while he restricted his call to non-violent forms of non-cooperation, his followers went beyond the norms of the agitation that he laid down. It led to a chain of communal riots – starting from the Great Calcutta Killing of August 1946 to massacres in Noakhali, Bihar and other parts of India. Poor Jinnah lost control over his followers. Like the legendary rider on the tiger, instead of jumping out from its neck, he allowed it to lead him to the goal of Pakistan that he had trained the tiger to reach.

But once reaching the goal – he found a Pakistan that was “mutilated and moth-eaten” (to recall his own words to describe the territorial division between a West Pakistan and an East Pakistan).At the same time, perhaps as an atonement for the murderous consequences of his miscalculated call for `Direct Action,’ or as a return to his original secular and liberal values, Jinnah , paradoxically again, in his address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan on August 11, 1947 outlined his vision of the new state that he presided over, in the famous statement that envisioned Hindu-Muslim unity in Pakistan: “ ….in course of timeHindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the (Pakistan) state.” These words are extremely relevant today for those citizens of both Pakistan and India who are struggling to re-establish the secular values and norms that were shared by Jinnah and Nehru – but betrayed by those who succeeded them .

But, whatever could have been Jinnah’s motivationsas a politician to fight for Pakistan, as an individual in the sphere of human relationships, Jinnah followed the norms of civilized behavior – which are lacking among the present generation of venom-spewing politicians. Soon after Gandhi’s assassination on January 30, 1948, Jinnahcame out with a tribute to him: “Whatever may (be) our political differences, he was one of the greatest men produced by the Hindu community. I wish to express my deep sorrow and sincerely sympathise with the great Hindu community and his family.” But at the same time, we cannot miss his bias – identifying Gandhi only with the `Hindu community.’ Jinnah ignored the vast sections of Muslim citizens of India who on that day, mourned Gandhi’s death.

The event of Gandhi’s assassination now leads us to another portrait . His picture adorns the gallery of portraits in India’s Parliament . He was accused of being the brain behind Gandhi’s assassination – but lateracquitted.He was V.D. Savarkar.

V.D. Savarkar and M.A. Jinnah – a study in contrast – and confluence

While examining Jinnah’s role in the pre-Independence political movement, let us now recall the part played by another contemporary of his during the same time – Vinayak Damodar Savarkar.Both were born at about the same time, Jinnah in 1876 and Savarkar in 1883. A young Jinnah reached London in 1893, and while studying law there during 1894-96,was drawn towardsDadabhaiNaoroji, the liberal nationalist leader of the Congress. Soon after passing out as a barrister from Lincoln’s Inn in London in 1896, he returned to Bombay to practice law and join the Indian National Congress. In 1906, he attended the Calcutta session of the Congress as DadabhaiNaoroji’s secretary.

Unlike the privileged upper class barrister Jinnah, Savarkar came from a humble middle class background. As a teenager in Nasik in Maharashtra, he was drawn to the armed nationalist revolutionaries. He arrived in London as a student in 1906, ten years after Jinnah’s departure from that city. Given his background, Savarkar naturally gravitated to ShyamjiKrishnavarma (the Indian revolutionary who at that time in London was running a magazine called The Indian Sociologist, through the columns of which he voiced the politically correctdemand for Home Rule for India, but behind that he sought to attract young Indian students and initiate them in his revolutionary programme of armed insurrection against British rule in India. Inspired by his ideas, young Savarkar made use of his stay in London by spending days and months in the India Office Library there, and while delving into documents relating to the 1857 rebellion, herealized that the prevalent colonial term to describe the event as a mere Mutiny’by a group of Indian Sepoy’ s was actually a misnomer for a larger movement. After rigorous research, he discovered that it went beyond the cantonments, and expanded into widely organized local resistance, in which vast sections of the people, including peasants participated with the objective of overthrowing British rule. On the basis of his findings, he wrote his first treatise, describing the rebellion with the title : `The Indian War of Independence, ’ originally written in Marathi , and later to come out in English from the Netherlands in 1909 – both editions to be banned immediately by the British administration in India.

Quite predictably, he came under the scanner of the British intelligence agencies in London, and he was arrested in 1910. After a series of adventures, beginning from his escape by jumping from the boat in which he was being carried as a prisoner, seeking refuge in the French territory, but being transported back to the custody of the British police, Savarkar was finally sentenced to transportation for life in the Andaman penal settlement.

Compared to this narrative of Savarkar’s adventures and sufferings, the story of Jinnah’s smoothpersonal and political voyage at around the same time, reads like a nursery tale of a successful hero. Through his professional career as a barrister, and along the constitutional corridors of the politics of the then moderate Congress , and later the Muslim League, he rose to the position of a decision-maker .

But then, Savarkar also like Jinnah, went through paradoxical roles . As described earlier, he started his political career by opting out from the constitutional path and choosing instead the goal of gaining independence through revolutionary means. But once incarcerated within the Andaman penal settlement, and experiencing the horrible living conditions there, Savarkar had second thoughts about his earlier revolutionary commitment. He started writing petitions to the British government from 1911 onwards,requesting clemency , followed by one dated November, 1913, stating: “I am ready to serve the Government in any capacity they like…”. But even after this expression of abject surrender to the colonial authorities, Savarkar still remained a suspect in their eyes. He wasreleased on May 2, 1921. Soon after his release, between 1921 and 1922 he penned his theoretical treatise Essentials of Hindutva’. It came out in a book form in 1923 (later to be retitled as Hindutva: Who is a Hindu ?’, in 1928), – which was allowed to be publicized and propagated by the then British administration, as it served its divide and rule’ policy of creating separate political identities for Hindus and Muslims. That treatise continues to sustain the ideological beliefs of the present ruling party, which identifies Indian nationalism with Hindutva.’

Jinnah and Savarkar – colliding – and unwittingly colluding in the creation of mirror portraits ?

It is interesting to note that in the 1920s, both Jinnah and Savarkar were moving in the direction of what came to be defined later as the two-nation theory’. Savarkar established the theory of Hindus constituting a separate nation, and therefore claiming possession of the geographical territory that constituted India. At around the same time, Jinnah presiding over the Lahore session of the Muslim League in 1924, raised the demand for a federation of states with full provincial autonomy to preserve Muslim-majority areas from Hindu domination’ – a demand which was later to transform into the creation of Pakistan.

As an act of satisfaction to Jinnah and Savarkar, the midwife of 1947 Partition delivered the twin states India and Pakistan through a bloody caesarean operation. The twins followed different pathsaccording to their respective constitutions – India as a secular state and Pakistan as an Islamic state.But over the years, like some twins resembling each other , both have acquired common features, and yet are fighting like Cain and Abel. Both India and Pakistan, while militarily engaged in daily cross-border firings, are paradoxically again , sharing common objectives in their domestic spheres. The first objective isreligio-ideological- the goal ofestablishing the hegemony of their respective religious faiths in theterritories that they occupy.The second objective is of an administrative nature – to suppress all forms of social and political dissent. Both the states have achieved this by the enactment and implementation of draconian laws .

The mirror-images

In India, the political system and society, under BJP rule, are being increasingly shaped (sometimes in an aggressive way, sometimes in a sneaking fashion) into the mould of a `Hindu Rhastra’, with the imposition of the traditional beliefs, customs, superstitions and myths of the majority community,on our daily life style and social and educational institutions, and violent offensive against the minorities and dissenters. We thus witness the regular lynching of Muslims and dalits and killing of political dissidents and rationalists by Hindu vigilante groups like Bajrang Dal, Vishva Hindu Parishad and Ram Sena among others, under the auspices of the ruling BJP politicians (who openly come out in defence of their supporters who raped a minor Muslim girl in Kashmir).

In order to sustain this system of violence against political opposition and social dissidence, the BJP government is resorting to the draconian laws (some inherited from the colonial past which are still on the statute book, and others which were introduced by its rival predecessor Congress government, like the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act), to arrest civil society and human rights activists who protest against the incarceration of innocent Muslims (branded by the police as terrorists’) andtribalsin Chhattisgarh who protest against their exploitation (condemned as Maoists.’)

Similarly in Pakistan, which is already a self-proclaimed theocratic Islamic state, the ruling powers (bond in a deadly alliance of the military, the clergy and self-serving politicians) not only promote the various Islamist fundamentalist groups to indulge in cross .border terrorism (in Afghanistan and India – in the latter, their latest victim being the outspoken Kashmiri journalist Shujaat Bukhari), but also within Pakistan,employ agents of the notorious ISI, and religious fanatics to abduct and kill journalists and Opposition politicians (describing them as threats to national security), and civil society dissidents who are accused of blasphemy ( under a catch-all-law to target anyone daring to question religious orthodoxyof the ruling powers). At the same time , this military-mullah mafia that operates as the `deep state,’ keeps on a façade of parliamentary democracy (primarily to placate its US and Western patro.ns) by periodically holding elections (after bouts of military coups), once sure that the newly elected representatives will follow its dictates and interests.In their own characteristic ways, both the states thus reflect each other , as mirror images of their respective religion-based violent fanaticism and state-administered terrorism.

Meanwhile, the two portraits – one of Jinnah adorning the wallsof Aligarh University since 1938, the other of Savarkar in Parliament House installed in 2003 (during the BJP rule) – are ageing. Theirliving replicas however remain youthful. But unlike Dorian Gray who enjoyed eternal youth by indulging in innocent sensual delights, the modern disciples of Jinnah and Savarkar are rejuvenating themselves by drinking the blood from the killing fields of the sub-continent. A stern-looking Jinnah with his famous cone shaped cap stares down upon us. Savarkar with his rectangular black cap (worn today by his RSS followers ) looks at us with a grim expression. Both the leaders will be remembered as iconic twins, in laying the groundwork for the partition of the sub-continent. It is as it were, a photographer chose a single model, using the studio lights to selectively highlight and exaggerate certain features of the model to turn the same face into two different looking portraits.

Sumanta Banerjee is a political and civil rights activist and social scientist

Today, the Republic of India faces its gravest moment since it was born seventy years ago. What has hit the second most populous nation in the world – just in the last few months itself – is nothing short of a crisis of Biblical proportions. An untreatable viral epidemic, a debilitating lockdown, a collapsed economy, hunger stalking every corner of[Read More…]